Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11jimmy faircloth media appearance
Audio With External Links Item Preview
Share or Embed This Item
- Publication date
- 2009-09-01
- Usage
- Public Domain
- Topics
- louisiana, politics, supreme court, republican, september, 2009, random
- Item Size
- 33.3M
on 01 september 2009, candidate for louisiana supreme court district #4, republican jimmy faircloth, appeared on the moon griffon radio program.
at the outset, mr. faircloth and mr. griffon payed lip-service to something that monroe attorney paul hurd had said the week before about the candidates need to get out before the citizenry and come clean about themselves by answering questions.
moon griffon then proceeded to not ask any relevant questions. imagine that.
and no one was permitted to phone in -- despite mr. faircloth's appearance spanning two segments.[length 17:25]. that was disappointing because we wanted to listen for anyone phoning in with a question about mainnet or the 24 may 2008 times-picayune story about it.
mr. griffon's 4th question did deal with mr. faircloth's association with gambling and the coushattas indians. mr. faircloth talked some about his representation of the coushattas, but griffon missed several golden opportunities to follow up with questions about mainnet.
why wont the media ask mr. faircloth any questions about mainnet? or whatever happened with the provost, umphrey lawsuit against mr. faircloth and his law firm? in that suit the plaintiff's allege that mr. faircloth stole their clients away, that he "improperly solicited" the tribe while "maligning and denigrating" provost, umphrey and other law firms, that mr. faircloth is 'unethical' & 'unscrupulous' that suit stemmed from mr. faircloth's association with the coushattas indians and their casino biz as well .
the second segment was devoted to mr. faircloth's explaining away his eviscerating the state ethic's law under the guise of "ethics reform," by changing the wording of the definition of the violation from "any substantial evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence."
it was pretty smooth the way he worked in the bit about his opponent being found unethical under the new ethics law: "moon i'am running against a candidate in this race, who was found to have violated the code of judicial ethics by 'clear and convincing evidence'"
more>>>
====
http://wesawthat.blogspot.com/2009/10/two-scary-rethugs-vie-for-la-state.html
====
http://www.wesawthat.blogspot.com/search?q=faircloth
at the outset, mr. faircloth and mr. griffon payed lip-service to something that monroe attorney paul hurd had said the week before about the candidates need to get out before the citizenry and come clean about themselves by answering questions.
moon griffon then proceeded to not ask any relevant questions. imagine that.
and no one was permitted to phone in -- despite mr. faircloth's appearance spanning two segments.[length 17:25]. that was disappointing because we wanted to listen for anyone phoning in with a question about mainnet or the 24 may 2008 times-picayune story about it.
mr. griffon's 4th question did deal with mr. faircloth's association with gambling and the coushattas indians. mr. faircloth talked some about his representation of the coushattas, but griffon missed several golden opportunities to follow up with questions about mainnet.
why wont the media ask mr. faircloth any questions about mainnet? or whatever happened with the provost, umphrey lawsuit against mr. faircloth and his law firm? in that suit the plaintiff's allege that mr. faircloth stole their clients away, that he "improperly solicited" the tribe while "maligning and denigrating" provost, umphrey and other law firms, that mr. faircloth is 'unethical' & 'unscrupulous' that suit stemmed from mr. faircloth's association with the coushattas indians and their casino biz as well .
the second segment was devoted to mr. faircloth's explaining away his eviscerating the state ethic's law under the guise of "ethics reform," by changing the wording of the definition of the violation from "any substantial evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence."
it was pretty smooth the way he worked in the bit about his opponent being found unethical under the new ethics law: "moon i'am running against a candidate in this race, who was found to have violated the code of judicial ethics by 'clear and convincing evidence'"
more>>>
====
http://wesawthat.blogspot.com/2009/10/two-scary-rethugs-vie-for-la-state.html
====
http://www.wesawthat.blogspot.com/search?q=faircloth
